1. Whether all facts- including the facts of a prior conviction- that increase a defendant's statutory maximum must be pleaded in the indictment and either admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

Subsidiary questions:

Dis the district court err in sentencing Quintero-Corral to a term of imprisonment great er than three years for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326?

Are the statutory enhancement provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) unconstitutional because Congress unequivocally intended the enhancements to be sentencing factors, not elements of separate offenses; but under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Aprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), such a scheme is unconstitutional?

Whether Quintero-Corral's guilty plea was involuntary and taken in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 because Quintero-Corral was not admonished that prior felony provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) stated an essential offense element that Quintero-Corral had the right to have the government prove, and a jury find, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Whether all facts- including the facts of a prior conviction- that increase a defendant's statutory maximum must be pleaded in the indictment and either admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?